XPost: alt.terrorism.world-trade-center, soc.culture.usa, alt.activism   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: pinkfloppybitsdatstank@hotmail.com   
      
   .impervious wrote:   
   > In news:RJUXb.27935$1S1.4193@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,   
   > CH attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:   
   >   
   >> .impervious wrote:   
   >>> In news:6fSXb.14629$5W3.4187@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,   
   >>> CH attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> You   
   >>>>> don't. In fact, Clinton prevented an attack.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And just which attack was this? Can you elaborate?   
   >>>   
   >>> i, for one, would be glad to.  Clinton prevented attacks on the UN   
   >>> Headquarters in New York, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the FBI   
   >>> Building, the Israeli Embassy in D.C., the LA and Boston airports,   
   >>> the George Washington Bridge, and the US Embassy in Tirana, Albania   
   >>> (which is considered American soil).  also, there was the much-hyped   
   >>> Millenium Bomber...  Clinton took out al-Qaeda cells in more than 20   
   >>> countries, and CREATED a national security post to oversee and   
   >>> coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity.  his first and   
   >>> second crime bills were practically entirely comprised of   
   >>> anti-terrorism legislation, and he created a national stockpile of   
   >>> drugs and vaccines in case of biological or chemical attacks.  after   
   >>> the Embassy bombings, Clinton issued a Presidential Directive   
   >>> authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  by any measure,   
   >>> he was the first President to aggressively tackle the problem of   
   >>> terrorism.   
   >>   
   >> Looks like he kinda missed the boat on al queda though and that is my   
   >> point. al queda should have been taken out during Clintoon's term not   
   >> covered up with a bunch of federal funding. When you only take   
   >> defensive measures when you are being attacked...it looks like he   
   >> kinda missed the boat.   
   >   
   > did he miss the boat kind of like, say, Bush?   
      
   Bush took action. Clinton took defensive measures, big difference.   
      
   > i mean, what do you   
   > want? the capture of Osama?  Bush hasn't done that, either.  a   
   > complete end to terrorism worldwide?  nope for Bush, either.  would   
   > you settle for a reduced risk of terrorists attacking us?  well, i   
   > guess Bush nearly has him beat, there...  he did, after all,   
   > capitulate to Osama's number one demand and remove our troops from   
   > Saudi Arabia.   
   >   
   > Clinton aggressively pursued terrorists.  period.   
      
   Clintoon aggressively pursued squat. He may have "pursued" terrorists but   
   nothing was aggressively done.   
      
   >  not just   
   > defensively, but offensively.  he took decisive measures to prevent   
   > and punish terrorist attacks both here and abroad.   
      
   He took the easy way out, that is what he did. He lobbed a few cruise   
   missles around as a show but never ever took the actions that were necessary   
      
   >  to claim   
   > otherwise is to attempt to re-write history.   
      
   I don't need to, history stands on its own.   
   >   
   >>>  wanna guess who thought up the idea of a Department of   
   >>> Homeland Security?  wanna guess who scoffed at the notion?   
   >>>   
   >>> were you even LIVING here at the time?  i mean, do you fucking know   
   >>> anything at all?  or have you just picked up the party lie - i mean,   
   >>> line - that Clinton sat on his ass while terrorists took over the   
   >>> world?   
   >>>   
   >>> there IS NO TERRORIST THREAT.  Bush rules through fear, and that's   
   >>> why you think he's out there fighting terrorists...  he's not.  he's   
   >>> certainly not preventing anything.   
   >>   
   >> Then why am I not scared? You watch waaaaaay to much TV   
   >> dude...........   
   >   
   > if you're not scared, it's because there is no terrorist threat.  what   
   > does television have to do with my statement?   
      
   It just seems like you must watch waaaaay too much.......   
      
   >>> look at it this way:   
   >>>   
   >>> in the year 2000, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack on the   
   >>> US were a big, fat zero.   
   >>>   
   >>> in the year 2002, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack on the   
   >>> US were a big, fat zero.   
   >>>   
   >>> in the year 2003, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack on the   
   >>> US were a big, fat zero.   
   >>>   
   >>> the only year you did have a chance was in 2001, and your chances   
   >>> were still 1 in 100,000.   
   >>>   
   >>> in 2001, you had a greater chance of dying:   
   >>>   
   >>> - from pneumonia (1 in 4,500)   
   >>> - by suicide (1 in 9,200)   
   >>> - in a homicide (1 in 14,000)   
   >>> - in a car accident (1 in 6,500)   
   >>>   
   >>> where was the government?  why wasn't anyone freaking out about this   
   >>> apparent pneumonia epidemic?  where were the Orange Alerts?  why   
   >>> didn't we bomb anybody?  looking at just the suicide rate, it means   
   >>> we were a greater danger to OURSELVES than terrorists were to us in   
   >>> 2001.   
   >>   
   >> ha-ha I find it a little pathetic that you do not know the difference   
   >> between normal causes of death and targeted killing of civilians for   
   >> political purposes, you are one of those people that will need to be   
   >> shown the dead bodies before you believe that these people are out to   
   >> get us. There is 3000 in NY already, how many more will it take   
   >> before you realize the implications of being wrong.   
   >   
   > i find it a little more than pathetic that you fail to see that   
   > naturally-caused deaths were responsible for far more deaths than   
   > terrorism, and nothing was done to prevent them.   
      
   Sure things were done to prevent them and a lot of them are avoidable. The   
   point is the next time we are attacked it may not be just airplanes. Are you   
   prepared to live like they do in Israel and Palestine? Now that is   
   fear......   
      
   > there is no objective reporting on television.  my news comes from   
   > facts, not speculation.   
      
   Well then your "facts" have clouded your judgement. That is obvious.   
      
   --   
   Cliff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)